<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-04-14T04:02:54Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:www.recercat.cat:10230/59422" metadataPrefix="marc">https://recercat.cat/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:recercat.cat:10230/59422</identifier><datestamp>2025-12-18T01:05:56Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_2072_6</setSpec><setSpec>col_2072_452952</setSpec></header><metadata><record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
   <leader>00925njm 22002777a 4500</leader>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="042">
      <subfield code="a">dc</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="720">
      <subfield code="a">Verdejo Aparicio, Víctor Martín</subfield>
      <subfield code="e">author</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="260">
      <subfield code="c">2024-03-15T07:11:20Z</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="260">
      <subfield code="c">2024-03-15T07:11:20Z</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="260">
      <subfield code="c">2016</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="520">
      <subfield code="a">It seems uncontroversial that Dalton wrongly believed that atoms are indivisible. However, the correct analysis of Dalton’s belief and the way it relates to contemporary beliefs about atoms is, on closer inspection, far from straightforward. In this paper, I introduce four features that any candidate analysis is plausibly bound to respect. I argue that theories that individuate concepts at the level of understanding are doomed to fail in this endeavor. I formally sketch an alternative and suggest that cases such as the one presented provide support for the claim that the genuine source for concept individuation is public sharable thought.</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2=" " ind1=" " tag="520">
      <subfield code="a">This research has been supported by the Secretary for Universities and Research of the Ministry of Economy and Knowledge of the Government of Catalonia, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (research projects [FFI2013-41415-P] and [FFI2012-35153]) and the consolidated research group GRECC [SGR2014-406].</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Belief ascription</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">concept possession</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">disagreement</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">communication</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">understanding</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield tag="653" ind2=" " ind1=" ">
      <subfield code="a">sense</subfield>
   </datafield>
   <datafield ind2="0" ind1="0" tag="245">
      <subfield code="a">Understanding and disagreement in belief ascription</subfield>
   </datafield>
</record></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>